Go to page

Well-known member

Ok, please discuss this rationally.
ie
Leave out the "sore loser libatrds cannot take their beating"

Has this merit?

My tuppence worth
The results from Michigan, PA in light of all polling were surprising.
However, the result from Wisconsin was quite incredible.

According to RCP, the last poll in Wisconsin was conducted by Remington Research (a GOP paid for poll) on Nov 1st and 2nd.
It had Clinton ahead by 8%
Not one poll in six months showed Trump even close
Her lead on the poll of polls was almost 7%
Trump had only one poll above 40% in over 20 conducted over previous six months ,yet he came in with 48%.
You can have all the cynicism you want regarding polling, but that sort of divergence really raises eyebrows.

If there was a massive late surge in these States of anything between 3-10%, why did it happen?
Also, why did it not happen in nearby Virginia, where the polls were ridiculously accurate (Clinton won by just under 6%, exactly in line with poll of polls average)?
Why did it not manifest, itself at least even partly in Illinois, where Clinton trounced her poll numbers, winning by 16% versus an expected 11%?
One would think if one State swung violently at the last minute to Trump, some evidence of that surge would wash up on the State beside it, particularly in neighbouring counties?

Stein came home with just 1%, while she had polled as high as 4%
My guess is she smells something here, she got just 30,000 votes and might have had late data that it should have been at least twice this.
Even allowing for traditional drop off for Independent candidates, she clearly feels 30k is not right.

Either way, if there is a recount, it's better it comes from Stein to a void a toxic debate regurgitation

Well-known member

Ok, please discuss this rationally.
ie
Leave out the "sore loser libatrds cannot take their beating"

Has this merit?

My tuppence worth
The results from Michigan, PA in light of all polling were surprising.
However, the result from Wisconsin was quite incredible.

According to RCP, the last poll in Wisconsin was conducted by Remington Research (a GOP paid for poll) on Nov 1st and 2nd.
It had Clinton ahead by 8%
Not one poll in six months showed Trump even close
Her lead on the poll of polls was almost 7%
Trump had only one poll above 40% in over 20 conducted over previous six months ,yet he came in with 48%.
You can have all the cynicism you want regarding polling, but that sort of divergence really raises eyebrows.

If there was a massive late surge in these States of anything between 3-10%, why did it happen?
Also, why did it not happen in nearby Virginia, where the polls were ridiculously accurate (Clinton won by just under 6%, exactly in line with poll of polls average)?
Why did it not manifest, itself at least even partly in Illinois, where Clinton trounced her poll numbers, winning by 16% versus an expected 11%?
One would think if one State swung violently at the last minute to Trump, some evidence of that surge would wash up on the State beside it, particularly in neighbouring counties?

Stein came home with just 1%, while she had polled as high as 4%
My guess is she smells something here, she got just 30,000 votes and might have had late data that it should have been at least twice this.
Even allowing for traditional drop off for Independent candidates, she clearly feels 30k is not right.

Either way, if there is a recount, it's better it comes from Stein to a void a toxic debate regurgitation

Ok, please discuss this rationally.
ie
Leave out the "sore loser libatrds cannot take their beating"

Has this merit?

My tuppence worth
The results from Michigan, PA in light of all polling were surprising.
However, the result from Wisconsin was quite incredible.

According to RCP, the last poll in Wisconsin was conducted by Remington Research (a GOP paid for poll) on Nov 1st and 2nd.
It had Clinton ahead by 8%
Not one poll in six months showed Trump even close
Her lead on the poll of polls was almost 7%
Trump had only one poll above 40% in over 20 conducted over previous six months ,yet he came in with 48%.
You can have all the cynicism you want regarding polling, but that sort of divergence really raises eyebrows.

If there was a massive late surge in these States of anything between 3-10%, why did it happen?
Also, why did it not happen in nearby Virginia, where the polls were ridiculously accurate (Clinton won by just under 6%, exactly in line with poll of polls average)?
Why did it not manifest, itself at least even partly in Illinois, where Clinton trounced her poll numbers, winning by 16% versus an expected 11%?
One would think if one State swung violently at the last minute to Trump, some evidence of that surge would wash up on the State beside it, particularly in neighbouring counties?

Stein came home with just 1%, while she had polled as high as 4%
My guess is she smells something here, she got just 30,000 votes and might have had late data that it should have been at least twice this.
Even allowing for traditional drop off for Independent candidates, she clearly feels 30k is not right.

Either way, if there is a recount, it's better it comes from Stein to a void a toxic debate regurgitation

In all fairness: The democratic procedure allows a recount. It will be ok if the recount shows more or less the same result. But it must also be ok if the recount shows a very different tally- and appropriate actions should be taken then.
However, it is not ok to deny the recount request if it was made the right way and in the right time frame.Any comments dismissing a request for a democratic right are undemocratic themselves.
What are you afraid of ?